New names - 2.068 roundup

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 14:29:34 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 13:50:09 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
>> - On the performance side, one point is that this grows the 
>> size of the struct by two machine words (string's .ptr and 
>> .length). This type is likely to be passed by value through 
>> function parameters, too.
>
> Aye, that's a compromise again - it could just allocate a new 
> string in that eager method, but since it is implicit, that 
> could easily waste a lot more time than the extra cached string.

This would be a great opportunity for automatic caching by the 
compiler. `eager` is pure, after all.